Please be very carefully non-partisan political in responding to this post, as I am endeavouring to be.
Anne Applebaum is an extraordinarily brilliant, recognized, and scholastically influential historian specialized in Russian communist and post communist history, civil society, authoritarian governments, kleptocracies, and the ex-Soviet empire. I have followed her for twenty years since reading her book Iron Curtain: The Crushing of Eastern Europe 1944–1956, which stunned me with its rare insights and clarity. Anne Applebaum - Wikipedia
THIS VIDEO of a new informal interview I consider a must watch for anyone wishing to understand what the heck is going on in the world, including the USA. She issues some clarion warnings about early signs of the USA (never mind Trump, mind the deeper trends) drifting towards authoritarian kleptocracy.
One theme that rang true was just how ignorant and inept far too many powerful USA “leaders” are.
Thank you for posting this very important discussion on America’s disturbing behavior toward Ukraine, Europe and Democracy.
I do not understand why America is sending American business men to negotiate peace between Ukraine and Russia with Russian business men without any inclusion of Ukrainians or Europeans. This is not a “business deal” that can be made between America and Russia. Ukraine and Europe will accept any such “business deal.”
Russia has been playing America to side with Russia in secret. Russian expansion goals are demonstrated by the following recent information:
High-ranking Kremlin officials continue to set conditions to justify potential future Russian aggression against Moldova and the Baltics. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov claimed on December 3 that authorities in the Baltic states and Moldova are passing “racist” laws and are “discriminating” against the Russian population.[28] Lavrov’s statement notably mirrors the narratives that the Kremlin used to try to justify its invasions of Ukraine. Russian officials have long applied the Kremlin’s informational playbook used against Ukraine to threaten Moldova as well as North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) members Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Finland.[29] ISW continues to assess that Russia has entered a “Phase Zero” effort that aims to set informational and psychological conditions to prepare for a possible NATO-Russia conflict in the future.[30]
Kremlin officials continued to refuse to publicly discuss the outcomes of the December 2 US-Russia meeting, as ISW previously forecasted. Russian State Duma International Affairs Committee First Deputy Head Alexei Chepa stated on December 3 that Russia is holding the talks with the United States “confidentially” to prevent outside forces from “exerting pressure” on the negotiations.[6] Kremlin Spokesperson Dmitry Peskov similarly stated that Russia will conduct the negotiations “in silence” and claimed that the negotiations will be more successful if they are private.[7] Peskov also claimed that Russia hopes the United States will adhere to Russia’s preference not to divulge information about the negotiations. ISW previously assessed that the Kremlin was preparing to refrain from publicly discussing the outcomes of the December 2 US-Russia meeting, to obfuscate Russia’s rejection of the US-Ukrainian peace proposal.[8]
The Kremlin is reigniting narratives that Odesa City is a Russian city. Russian State Duma Deputy Dmitry Pevtsov claimed on December 3 that Russia will likely resolve the war with the “pseudo-state” Ukraine through military means so that Russians can go to their “ancestral lands” in Odesa City.[9] Former Russian Prime Minister Sergei Stepashin claimed on November 26 that he would like Odesa and Mykolaiv cities to be a part of Russia through “voluntary” means, not military means.[10] Russian claims regarding Odesa and Mykolaiv cities come against the backdrop of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s December 2 threat that Russia could cut Ukraine off from the Black Sea – possibly to set conditions to seize territory on Ukraine’s Black Sea coast in Odesa and Mykolaiv oblasts.[11] These recent Russian territorial claims and threats against the Black Sea region are not new or isolated but follow repeated statements in the past, including from Putin himself.[12] Putin claimed in December 2023 that Russia historically controlled the Black Sea region and that Odesa City is a “Russian” city.”[13] Russian officials last ignited their narrative that Odesa City is a Russian city during the height of the April 2025 peace negotiations, likely in an attempt to paint Russia as prepared to protract the war and seize even more territory from Ukraine, such that Ukraine and the West should give in to Russia’s seemingly more limited demands now.[14] Russian officials’ renewal of these narratives in December 2025 likely aims to support the Kremlin’s ongoing cognitive warfare effort to portray Russia as capable of protracting the war to achieve its goals and a Russian victory as ultimately inevitable. The Kremlin may also aim to use repeated narratives over the years about Odesa City to set conditions to justify renewed aggression against Ukraine following a future peace settlement in the name of protecting ethnic Russians and “ancestral” Russian lands. ISW continues to assess that Russia is not in a position to cross the Dnipro River, make significant advances westward, and seize Odesa City, however.[15]
Yes, indeed. Anne Applebaum is one of the great explainers, as is another favorite, historian Heather Cox Richardson. Her Friday newsletter echoes many of the ideas of Anne & Scott, but with an emphasis on the release of the Executive’s 2025 “National Security Strategy”.
In analyzing its contents and message, near the beginning HCR points out:
After a brief introduction touting what it claims are the administration’s great successes, the document begins by announcing the U.S. will back away from the global engagements that underpin the rules-based international order that the World War II Allies put in place after that war to prevent another world war. The authors of the document claim that the system of institutions like the United Nations, alliances like the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and free trade between nations that established a series of rules for foreign engagement and a web of shared interests around the globe has been bad for the U.S. because it undermined “the character of our nation.”
